Brooklyn Daily Eagle v. Voorhies
| Decision Date | 13 September 1910 |
| Citation | 181 F. 579 |
| Parties | BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE v. VOORHIES, Postmaster. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Samuel T. D. Jones, for complainant.
William J. Youngs, U.S. Atty., and William Austin Moore, Asst. U.S Atty., for defendant.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has filed a bill in equity seeking to restrain the postmaster of Brooklyn from refusing to accept as second-class mail matter the editions of that paper, if those editions contain the advertisement of a contest in which prizes are to be given for the 'best' compositions upon the name of a certain breakfast food. Each essay is to be accompanied when sent in with three labels cut from packages of this food, and the essays are to be judged by three gentlemen of well known and indisputable standing from a literary standpoint.
The defendant has admitted the facts, but has offered two objections to the granting of the relief. The first objection is that the contest proposed is a lottery. The other objection raised is that the court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the defendant claims that he, as postmaster, and his superior, the Postmaster General, under whose instructions the case shows that he is acting, are executive officers of the government, and that the question of all use of the mails is vested in their discretion; such discretion not being subject to review by the courts.
The defendant has cited in support of this the provisions of sections 3929 and 4041, Rev. St., as amended by sections 2 and 3, respectively, of Act Cong. Sept. 19, 1890, c. 908, 26 Stat. 466 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2686, 2749), and Act Cong. March 2, 1895, c. 191, 28 Stat. 963 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3178), under which the Postmaster General, after a hearing as prescribed in the statute, may find that the particular use of the mails would tend to defraud or be a lottery, and compel a cessation of that use by the parties responsible therefor; the mail matter or money being returned to the sender.
This statute does not cover the present case, for the mails have not been used, the Postmaster General has not found any use to be conducting a lottery, and has made no order that any particular use of the mail by any person be prevented for such a reason. He has only instructed the postmaster of Brooklyn to take out of the mails, or to refuse to accept for delivery through the mails copies of the newspaper in question, if it shall contain what the Postmaster General assumes will be an advertisement of a lottery and what the complainant stated it intended to print and offer for transmission. This instruction is given under the regulations by which the postmaster is authorized to submit doubtful mail matter to the Postmaster General for appropriate action, but in the present case the submission has been made of proposed, rather than offered, second-class mail.
With the motive for these instructions no fault can be found, yet there would seem to be no question that the United States courts have the authority under the statutes and Constitution to determine whether or not the Postmaster General or the postmaster of Brooklyn is acting within the authority given them by act of Congress (for they have no other authority) in administering the offices which they hold and in carrying out the provisions of those statutes. School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 23 Sup.Ct. 33, 47 L.Ed. 90; Houghton v. Payne, 194 U.S. 88, 24 Sup.Ct. 590, 4 L.Ed. 888; Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106, 24 Sup.Ct. 595, 48 L.Ed. 894. Such a determination also involves passing upon the statutes themselves, i.e., as to whether they as a matter of law cover the facts of the particular case. School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, supra, at page 107, of 187 U.S., 23 Sup.Ct. 33, 47 L.Ed. 90. These cases also approve of the practice of bringing a bill in equity to prevent a threatened wrong, when the sole question is as to whether or not the matter because of which the newspaper is to be excluded from the mails has been legally held by the Postmaster General unmailable under the statutes of the United States. Hence we are asked to consider whether in this particular case the advertisement in question would be an advertisement of a lottery, under the language of section 3894, Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2659), which is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Communications Commission v. American Broadcasting Co Federal Communications Commission v. National Broadcasting Co Federal Communications Commission v. Columbia Broadcasting System
...v. Murray, 1 Cir., 230 F. 773, certiorari denied 241 U.S. 675, 36 S.Ct. 725, 60 L.Ed. 1232. But cf. dictum in Brooklyn Daily Eagle v. Voorhies, C.C.E.D.N.Y., 181 F. 579, 581—582. 12 A leading case is Maughs v. Porter, 157 Va. 415, 161 S.E. 242; see also State ex rel. Regez v. Blumer, 236 Wi......
-
Summerfield v. Sunshine Book Company, 12026.
...U.S. 178, 68 S.Ct. 591, 92 L.Ed. 628; Reilly v. Pinkus, 1949, 338 U.S. 269, 70 S.Ct. 110, 94 L. Ed. 63. 5 But cf. Brooklyn Daily Eagle v. Voorhies, 2 Cir., 1910, 181 F. 579, where the court seems to have assumed the power of the Postmaster General to exclude from mailing under postal regula......
-
State v. Wilson
... ... something or give up some right." Brooklyn Daily ... Eagle v. Voorhies (C. C.), 181 F. 579, 581 ... See, also, ... ...
-
State v. Wilson
...to compete. It is only necessary that the person entering the competition shall do something or give up some right." Brooklyn Daily Eagle v. Voorhies, C.C., 181 F. 579, 581. See, also, Thomas, "Lotteries, Frauds and Obscenity in the Mails," pp. 21ff; Haley, "The Broadcasting and Postal Lott......